Andrew Trexler

@atrexler.com

Assistant professor. | He/his. | Political communication, political behavior, news media, public opinion, survey methods. | atrexler.com | Opinions own.

New paper with Yanna Krupnikov out in Political Communication! 🎉 We know moral-emotional content ("moral outrage") spreads fast on social media. But does that mean people actually want to see it? We tested whether people select this content when given the choice - turns out, not really.

Rethinking Assumptions About Moral Content Selection: Moral-Emotional Content May Be Less Appealing Than Assumed

Recent work has shown that moral-emotional content spreads rapidly on social media platforms such as X (Twitter). These patterns have led to concerns that social media facilitates the spread of mor...

tandfonline.com

Working on a dissertation in American political behavior and need money for survey research? Apply for a grant worth up to $15,000 from the Rapoport Family Foundation. They’re planning on awarding up to 15 grants this cycle. Deadline Oct. 21. www.rapoportfamilyfoundation.com/phdgrant

Rapoport Doctoral Dissertation Grants

Supporting projects for PhD students doing political science research, democracy and social justice.

rapoportfamilyfoundation.com

The fundraising texts you delete are working on someone. It’s infuriating and heartbreaking. An 85yo in Ohio gave more than double the value of his home. A 91yo in an Indianapolis senior facility gave 25K times. The DCCC/DSCC don’t just tolerate the spammers who exploit seniors. They take part.

Hook and Squeeze

How Democratic consultants, committees, and party leaders built a fundraising spam pipeline that funnels money from a captive pool of elderly donors into their own operations.

data4democracy.substack.com

🚨Super excited to share this new WP with Joohye Jeong, @adamberinsky.bsky.social, Soong & Parker. We ask a simple but extremely practical Q for survey researchers: 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬/𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐲? Answer: Not really, no. 👍

BildBild

New pub, led by Aymin Triki & in collab w/ @abbycassario.bsky.social, accepted at JESP! We found similarities in party cues among the left and the right when using representative samples of issues, although right-wing authoritarians may be an exception Other interesting findings follow!

Abstract of paper. It reads, How do people with different political ideologies process political information? Party cues are an
effect where people are more likely to support a policy position if they learn their party also
supports it, shifting their judgement in accordance with cues from their inparty and against their
outparty. This effect has been at the center of the debate over the psychological differences
between liberals and conservatives, with some scholars suggesting that differences in cognitive
styles between liberals and conservatives (e.g., rigidity, cognitive reflection) should result in
differences in party cue susceptibility. We advance this debate by measuring rigid cognitive
styles and applying a stimuli sampling approach to party cues across four preregistered
experiments (N’s per study > 1200). We found convincing evidence for ideological symmetries
in party cues in quota matched samples of Americans (Studies 1 & 2). In Studies 3 and 4, across
four measures of ideology and three self-report measures of cognitive rigidity, we found
ideological differences in self-reported rigidity in line with previous research. In Study 3, a
convenience sample, we found that conservatives were more likely to follow party cues.
However, Study 4, using a quota matched sample, found no ideological differences in cue
susceptibility, except with respect to right-wing authoritarianism. Exploratory analyses found
that when one group has greater prior awareness or stronger initial views on a topic, they show
smaller cueing effects. We conclude that while liberals and conservatives differ in cognitive
style, they largely share similar cognitive processes for interpreting and integrating political
information.Bild

We need to change norms around sexual harassment Yesterday Tessa West spoke up about a sexual harassment complaint she filed against John Jost. Not only is he a senior colleague in the dept of psychology, but he is one of the most prominant figures in the field of social and political psychology.

Bild

‘Polarization’ has become the master concept for diagnosing our current democratic crisis. But this is not polarization. It is the radicalization of the political right. By misdiagnosing it, we risk becoming complicit in the crisis. 🧵 Just out in Perspectives on Politics doi.org/10.1017/S153...

Bild

🚨 🚨Calling all #polisky grad students who presented at #ISA2026: I'm chairing the committee for the Human Rights Section’s Steven C Poe best grad student paper award. We are currently accepting nominations, including self-nominations, and all you have to do is email your paper to me!

Seeing lots of "voters are dumb" takes on this, Converse laser-eyes, etc. Consider the survey-taking experience. Ppl see/interpret these individually and give atomized answers. Q1: What will make Ds electable? Move to center. Q2: Is D party radical? No. Q3: Your personal view? Socialism = good.

G Elliott Morris@gelliottmorris.com · 4mo ago

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly. Huh? www.gelliottmorris.com/p/2026-06-12...

Thrilled to announce my paper with @dianamejordan.bsky.social & sky-less Trent Ollerenshaw is now published open-access at @apsrjournal.bsky.social. In a (very) large replication & extension, we show that design effects of repeated measure experiments are nonzero but typically small. Thread:

Abstract for "New Evidence and Design Considerations for Repeated Measure Experiments in Survey Research" by Diana Jordan, Trent Ollerenshaw, and Andrew Trexler, published in the American Political Science Review. The abstract text reads: "We re-examine recent influential claims that repeated measure experimental designs offer large precision gains without biasing treatment effect estimates in survey research. We test these claims by experimentally varying the design of six classic political science experiments across three distinct large samples of U.S. adults (total N = 13,163). In contrast to prior evidence, we observe consistent attenuation of treatment effects in repeated measure designs. However, we show in simulations that this average design effect is small enough, and the precision gains large enough, that we recommend repeated measure designs for broad application—though (large-N) post-only designs may be preferable when research priorities include estimating the precise magnitude of a treatment effect. We additionally explore how several design considerations affect the bias-precision trade-off, such as within-subject versus between-groups designs, the relative separation of repeated measures within single surveys, and differences in respondent characteristics across sample types."
Cambridge University Press Political Science & IR@cambup-polsci.cambridge.org · 6mo ago

#OpenAccess from @apsrjournal.bsky.social - New Evidence and Design Considerations for Repeated Measure Experiments in Survey Research - https://cup.org/4sVtFLj - @dianamejordan.bsky.social, TRENT OLLERENSHAW & @atrexler.com #FirstView

A graphic with a green and blue background. The top green section displays the text "#OpenAccess" in white. The bottom blue section shows the text "American Political Science Review" in white.